“Dishonest. “Misleading.” “Dishonest.” “Irresponsible.” Ordered numerous invasive procedures (including colonoscopies and lumbar punctures) which were “contrary to the clinical interests of Child 2.” Same for Child 1. Same for Children 3, 4, 9, 5, 12, 8 and 7. Lied about this to the Ethics Committee even though not qualified to determine whether in fact in the relevant child’s clinical interests (see pages 20 – 21 and frequently thereafter). “Contrary to the clinical interests of Child 10,” he gave Child 10 an experimental drug, for “experimental reasons”, called Transfer Factor. He part owned the company which owned Transfer Factor. The dosing with Transfer Factor was not recorded in Child 10’s medical records.

Page 45:

“In reaching its decision, the Panel notes that the project reported in the Lancet paper was established with the purpose to investigate a postulated new syndrome and yet the Lancet paper did not describe this fact at all. Because you drafted and wrote the final version of the paper, and omitted correct information about the purpose of the study or the patient population, the Panel is satisfied that your conduct was irresponsible and dishonest.

The Panel is satisfied that your conduct at paragraph 32.a would be considered by ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people to be dishonest.”

He “showed a callous disregard for the distress and pain” which the children from whom he caused blood to be taken might have suffered. Blood taken at his son’s birthday party. He paid them £5.

Note – the GMC applies the criminal (proof beyond reasonable doubt) not the civil (more likely than not) standard of proof. That is, any doubt, and the allegation is not proved.